Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Exar Kuun
Center for Applied Logistics
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 20:17:00 -
[1] - Quote
Please keep team sizes at 16 or 32
Alot of people are asking for very large matches, but really, in my experience 16 is optimal and while 32 can be great fun i becomes a pain to organize.
I've played FPS for years and have been a fan of particularly Battlefield, Killzone and MAG.
I can honestly say that when friendly-fire is ON and teamwork is an absolute MUST, you not only need better matchmaking and lobbies than exist today, but you need to seriously look and teamsize.
In MAG it was difficult enough to build cooperation across 32 player maps and on 64 player maps you could just forget about it. It is extremely hard to build a gaming clan that can consistently field 32 players for matches. Even 16 is extremely hard.
I still don't know how matchmaking works for Dust as i havent played it, but i really hope you go for great gameplay rather than great size. Considering there is air, vehicle and infantry combat going on i would think 16 players on either team is sufficient.
Going larger will make it hard for Dust corps to fill the slots..
with friendly fire active and sabotage and backstabbing being what it is in EVE- filling the slots with your own people is an imperative.
ALSO
if you are contacted to take a player planet rather thab FW planet, i don't see how you can fill spare slots with outside players. So as i understand it, keeping the team sizes at an optimal level will be important. I firmly believe 16 is the optimal number of players per team.
MAG tried 64 vs 64 and 128 vs 128, but as far as teamplay goes that project failed miserably. 64 vs 64 was fun at times, but there was hardly any teamplay and no teamplay on the largest matches.. |
ElQuirko
The Demonfuge Malevolent Fan Club
295
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 20:30:00 -
[2] - Quote
MAG was crap. |
Jask Avan
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
79
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 20:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
Please make DUST more like EVE and less like ****** CoD. |
ElQuirko
The Demonfuge Malevolent Fan Club
295
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 20:38:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jask Avan wrote:Please make DUST more like EVE and less like ****** CoD.
Oh god no. We'd be sitting in dropships for hours, "armour spinning".
Make it more like DUST. Make it something utterly new. People say that the FPS genre is now so old it can't be redefined - prove them wrong! |
Exar Kuun
Center for Applied Logistics
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 21:00:00 -
[5] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:Jask Avan wrote:Please make DUST more like EVE and less like ****** CoD. Oh god no. We'd be sitting in dropships for hours, "armour spinning". Make it more like DUST. Make it something utterly new. People say that the FPS genre is now so old it can't be redefined - prove them wrong!
i agree... FPS genre is stale and unimpressive these days. I'm hoping Dust can redefine the genre.
My greatest worry in regards to gameplay is having the teams so big that Dust corporations can't realistically fill all the slots. When high level teamwork is mandatory you really don't want to play with people you don't know.
BF3 my clan has about 30 players. All good and active players. We rarely have 10 people on at the same time. I'm worried that we end up with massive matches where you need hundreds of members to field a full team.. |
ElQuirko
The Demonfuge Malevolent Fan Club
295
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 21:08:00 -
[6] - Quote
Exar Kuun wrote:
i agree... FPS genre is stale and unimpressive these days. I'm hoping Dust can redefine the genre.
My greatest worry in regards to gameplay is having the teams so big that Dust corporations can't realistically fill all the slots. When high level teamwork is mandatory you really don't want to play with people you don't know.
BF3 my clan has about 30 players. All good and active players. We rarely have 10 people on at the same time. I'm worried that we end up with massive matches where you need hundreds of members to field a full team..
Goonswarm and PL will dominate the field, hotdropping with hundreds of SuperSoldiers or whatever the people equivalent of supercaps is. |
Ardamalis
Vanguard Corp Bounty Hunters
45
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 23:26:00 -
[7] - Quote
@ OP
I believe CCP said that they were aiming for 24 vs 24.
EDIT: I found the source:
Playstation Blog
If you look down in the comments section, CCP said:
Quote:We are aiming for 48 players in a 24vs24 match. As to the release date, it is currently set for the summer of 2012. We will give updates on info such as the release dates as we finalize DUST 514, so keep watching! I would like to add that the numbers I gave are not set in stone. We currently support large scale battles that are much larger than commonly found in most console multiplayer games. We will also be working to increase that number over time, too. |
Karthwritte
Darthrin Storm Enterprise Drunken Capsuleers
18
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 23:37:00 -
[8] - Quote
Maybe 32 vs 32 in one location doesn't mean anything bad. Depending on the different structures, its functions and its numbers; you could have 100 players fighting in multiple locations at the same time in the same planet, making matches of 64 only in very very tactical locations, and of course with the best players. The possibilities depends on CCP imagination, because the tech is there. |
Nirnias Stirrum
Ore Mongers
6
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 23:41:00 -
[9] - Quote
Dust is going to be the Planetside wannabe! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
4298
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 23:45:00 -
[10] - Quote
GǪto put that into perspective, Planetside 2 aims for 2,000 players per continent (up from 500 in PS1), so presumably 600+ per faction. Haven't seen any mention of squad/platoon sizes yet, or if they'll even retain those group structures (was 3+ù10 in PS1). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
|
Tiberius Sunstealer
Phantom Soulreavers
38
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 00:24:00 -
[11] - Quote
I'd like 64 player matches. People are going to say it's hard to organise but the Battlefield series does it well. Even with a public match, most people would listen to orders and work as a team. |
Selinate
566
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 00:41:00 -
[12] - Quote
On one hand I agree that 16 or 32 players can get fairly fun, but on the other hand, have you ever put a light machine gun on the ground with a bipod and just mowed down n00bs before? Can you imagine that happening 100 times in the course of an hour or so?
I dunno. I think to some extent Dust will force cooperation to a much higher level than the FPS's we have right now. I mean, you have to get paid somehow FFS or you can't play the game b/c you lose so often. |
Herping yourDerp
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
365
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 06:49:00 -
[13] - Quote
um MAG was awesome, but the only game modes that mattered were 128 vs 128. however, it was impossible to effectively support other team mates assaults.. the only real way was for attackers to move the failtanks to one side of the map. 64 would probably be the best, but it depends on the game it self. Mag did a lot of things right, but what killed it was imbalance and lack of maps. |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Ponies for the Ethical Treatment of Asteroids
815
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 07:34:00 -
[14] - Quote
I think CCP should break more boundaries! 256v256 maps! |
Valei Khurelem
122
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 11:51:00 -
[15] - Quote
As long as they're keeping micro-transactions in the development process they'll just let you pay -ú10 to blow everyone up so I don't think you need to worry about how many there are.
Edit: No wait, I think it's going to be -ú1000 probably, like the pants but more useful |
Balthazar Baraz
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 12:16:00 -
[16] - Quote
As someone mentioned Planetside 2 - the beta registration is out by the way. I have also signed up for that, along with DUST. |
Grideris
Fleet Coordination Command Fleet Coordination Coalition
128
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 13:13:00 -
[17] - Quote
24v24 is where it will start. Where it goes from there I don't know - it all depends on what direction CCP decides to take it.
Shouldn't you all be more worried about all your pins and lines being attacked by the evil console kiddies? I'm pretty sure that's what you were all raging about last week. Don't tell me you're over that already! http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial site for everything DUST 514
|
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
212
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 13:27:00 -
[18] - Quote
It all depends on the map. In BF3 64 * 64 Seine is terrible, but for Caspian Border it is great.
That said, BF3 squad mechanics are still meh compared to BF2142. The squad mechanics of DUST will be make or break for me whether to pony up for a PS3. As it is console I guess we'll end up with some COD style play instead but we'll see. FIRE FRIENDSHIP TORPEDOES ! |
Exar Kuun
Center for Applied Logistics Strategic Business Solutions
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 13:38:00 -
[19] - Quote
If the matches are going to be 24 vs 24 and move upwards in size from there, i have to say i`m very curious as to how they are going to populate the teams.
Using FW as a starting point makes sense, but what happens when they move Dust into low-sec and 0.0. At that point only the contracting corps will be engaging and i`m fairly sure there will not be many clans able to consistently field 24 players.
As far as 128 vs 128 and 256 vs 256 goes i really doubt any dust corps will be able to field that many people on request.
As far as squad mechanics go i`m betting they`re elaborating on MAG and Battlefield 2142. If they go with MAGs multiple objectives they might make it work with 64 vs 64 IF there is one dust corp per objective. I do remember the 128 vs 128 maps in MAG and they never worked. The assaults were impossible to coordinate effectively.
Air raiders had one of the more sizeable clans in MAG but we never fielded more than 16 at any given time. That meant we dominated the 32 vs 32 matches and we were big enough have a significant impact on 64 vs 64. On the biggest maps however there were just too many clans and solo players to coordinate.
What happens when you contract the biggest dust alliance in game and they arrive with 128 players and the defender can only hire a dust corp with 40 players? |
Caldari Citizen20090217
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 16:18:00 -
[20] - Quote
Quote:What happens when you contract the biggest dust alliance in game and they arrive with 128 players and the defender can only hire a dust corp with 40 players?
AOE weapons or orbital bombardment happens, followed by much rage from 128 players
|
|
SpaceSquirrels
251
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:42:00 -
[21] - Quote
Fan of larger engagements. 16 + per team preferred. Love me some 64 BF.
Though honestly it depends on the map layout and goals on said map. Whats the goal? Conquest? An objective? a few objectives? Inhalation? What? |
Baneken
Hyvat Pahat ja Eric The Polaris Syndicate
62
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 10:18:00 -
[22] - Quote
Keep in mind that alliances such as goons have over 6000+ members alone and any 'large' alliance has over 2000+ players even if 1/3 is just alts filling the ranks and only 1/3 plays eve actively that's still a lot players for dust even if only 1/10th would own a PS3 and 1/2 of that number would be interested in playing DUST.
From a 6000 something that would be about 30 players at least playing dust in worst case scenario ... |
Brujo Loco
Brujeria Teologica
315
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 17:39:00 -
[23] - Quote
You guys thinking about ideal sizes, when in reality QUALITY OF THE MAP LAYOUT will be the most important thing. I really never cared about team size as much as map layout.
There are maps I still play to death in some online FPS games due to their extremely fun and properly set design. If all CCP gives us is a square block filled with unbreakable boxes and walls, it might be a 12 vs 12 or a 256x256 map, it wont matter it will suck big time. Inner Sayings of BrujoLoco: http://eve-files.com/sig/brujoloco |
Firestorm Delta
Wiki Industrialists Wiki Conglomerates
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 20:23:00 -
[24] - Quote
I don't know about everyone else here but I played as part of a Clan for Battlefield 2142. If Dust has vehicles, aircraft, and infantry, and needs balanced teams then going 2142 style where the largest teams were 32v32 then I think it would work fine.
Also it may be hard to get a full 32 man team to cooperate but if you managed to and your enemy didn't it would be a brutally one sided fight. That happened to us once in 2142 where we had most of our clans 2142 players on one team somehow and the rest were some of the regulars to our server and who knew their stuff. Needless to say we split the clan mates between the two teams to make it fair shortly there after.
If it's going to end up 24vs24 I think that would probably be the most balanced because it's neither too large or too small for a good game. I know 16vs16 used to always be fairly boring and any less then that was even less fun. |
Naj Panora
Homless Nomads
3
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 20:24:00 -
[25] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:MAG was crap.
You obviously have spent too much time with CoD to know a good game. Concept is incredible and if it weren't for the feel good crap CoD has it probably would have been a bigger success. |
Kattshiro
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 20:37:00 -
[26] - Quote
Brujo Loco wrote:You guys thinking about ideal sizes, when in reality QUALITY OF THE MAP LAYOUT will be the most important thing. I really never cared about team size as much as map layout.
There are maps I still play to death in some online FPS games due to their extremely fun and properly set design. If all CCP gives us is a square block filled with unbreakable boxes and walls, it might be a 12 vs 12 or a 256x256 map, it wont matter it will suck big time.
While I dont discount what you're saying it's going to suck if you dont have the right amount of people. Large map with too much space isn't fun. Small map that's one big choke point isn't too much fun. Differing team size also sets a tone. Huge bf games or planetside are very different from CS or COD.
And then there's TF2...but it's awesome for a whole lot of different reasons.
|
Spineker
94
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 21:05:00 -
[27] - Quote
People actually own PS3's? LOL |
SpaceSquirrels
251
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 02:02:00 -
[28] - Quote
^
Somewhere between 25 - 42 million total as of last x mas season. |
Claire Voyant
90
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 18:38:00 -
[29] - Quote
There has been no discussion in this thread about vehicles. Most of the dust vehicles have seats for gunners, so pilots and gunners have to be included in the totals I think. I don't think we are talking about 24v24 infantry or 32v32 infantry only. The vehicles description from the Dust dev blogs are: Mobile Command Center - crew 1? commander Heavy Assault Vehicle - crew 3 (driver + two gunners?) Light Assault Vehicle - crew 3 (driver, gunner, + one infantry?) Light Logistics Vehicle - crew 3 (driver, gunner, + one infantry?) Dropship - crew 7 (pilot, 2 gunners, + four infantry?) It is not clear that every team would need all of the above, but one of each would total at least 14 players per side.
Obviously you can put it together any way you want, but it seems to me that you are going to want to get infantry accross the battlefield to the objective and you have three basic choices: 1. Hoof it 2. Dropships 3. Light vehicles
Wouldn't a limit of 16 per side limit your flexibility drastically?
CmdWang on the PS blog says they will most likely start with 24v24 but that they expect that number to increase over time and they are currently testing much larger battles. It seems to me they are limiting the size at the beginning only because they fear it will be too hard for corps to get a larger numbers of players lined up for battles. The game seems to be designed for at least 32v32 but I don't expect we'll be seeing human waves as an effective battlefield strategy. |
Spineker
94
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 20:11:00 -
[30] - Quote
SpaceSquirrels wrote:^
Somewhere between 25 - 42 million total as of last x mas season.
Wow that is suckage. Out of that number they will sell maybe 5000 if that. There are over billion PCs in homes around the world.
Even if they released it on the Xbox360 also that is less than a tenth of PCs. MS said they have sold almost 50 million Xbox360s. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |